- (1.)The respondent along with one Sitaram was charged under section 302 of the indian Penal Code for having allegedly committing the murder of one Maharu, on 1.5.1992 at about 6. 00 p. m. in village antapur Shivar. Upon trial, the appellant was convicted but Sitaram acquitted. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court vide the judgment impugned in this appeal by special leave.
(2.)It is contended before us that the case against the respondent is based upon only circumstantial evidence as there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The trial court noticed the circumstances in para 46 of its judgment and concluded that as the aforesaid circumstance stood proved, the appellant was liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the indian Penal Code. On appreciation of evidence, the High Court also came to the conclusion that the circumstance proved against the appellant formed a complete chain to connect him with the commission of crime. None of the circumstances could be explained on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the whole evidence and urged that the circumstances held to have been proved were not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime, as according to him, there were some missing chains, the benefit of which should be given to the accused. One of such circumstance explained is that the bloodstained clothes of the appellant and the knife recovered at his instance has not been proved to be having the bloodstains of group 'b' - the blood group of the deceased. The report of the forensic science laboratory indicated that the clothes of the appellant and the knife recovered at his instance were having human blood, the group of which could not be ascertained on account of disintegration of the blood spots. Merely because the blood group on the clothes and the blood on the knife was not ascertained, could not be a reason to hold that any chain of the circumstance was missing, as argued. Only because the blood group could not be ascertained, the recovery made at the instance of the accused, cannot be discarded as held by this court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Others [ (1999) 3 SCC 507] and State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/ sit v. Nalini and Others [jt 1999 (4) SC 106].